Model comparison
Gemma 4 E2B vs Inkling
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E2B unranked; Inkling #17
BenchAlign evidence: Gemma 4 E2B estimated; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E2B and Inkling share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Gemma 4 E2B; 15 to Inkling.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Gemma 4 E2B only
- 14
- Inkling only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 34. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E2B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemma 4 E2B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemma 4 E2B | Δ | Inkling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 E2B56.9 | Margin← 5.2 | Inkling51.7 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling69.4 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling68.6 |
| Math | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling97.1 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling76.5 |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Inkling79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 43.4%B 87.9%Winner: InklingΔ 44.5GPQA: Gemma 4 E2B scored 43.4%; Inkling scored 87.9%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E2B | Inkling | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 output | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | Gemma 4 E2B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | InklingNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | InklingNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 E2B128K | Inkling1M | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 E2B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 43.4% | 87.9% | Inkling leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 60% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 4.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -24.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 6.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 32.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 46% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 30% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | Inkling | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 97.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 E2B or Inkling?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 34. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 87.9%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 E2B or Inkling?
Gemma 4 E2B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.9 versus 51.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.